Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm using VS 2010 since we're developing an app in .Net 4 and the performance is driving me crazy. It's mostly bad when I don't view the IDE for a while (such as when I get pulled away for a help desk call or come in in the morning).

I realize it's probably built in WPF which unloads its resources when unused, but the few minute delay while it loads everything back up is really annoying. I've also noticed some significant delays when opening files or compiling.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by MichaelT, Bart van Ingen Schenau, Kilian Foth, GlenH7, gnat Sep 16 '14 at 14:03

  • This question does not appear to be about software development within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

This question would better fit on Super User as they give objective answers on computer hardware and software, while we are into subjective discussions about software development. – Tom Wijsman Sep 24 '10 at 13:28
Thank you, I will try there – Rachel Sep 24 '10 at 14:00
You will get better answers here. I unknown one VS user who aren't programmer. – bigown Sep 24 '10 at 16:41
If you can vote and think this is a useful question or it have useful answers below, please vote up. StackExchange sites need votes to build a good community. You can give 30 votes per day, don't waste them. Specially users with high reputation and low counting votes given please read this:… – bigown Oct 5 '10 at 19:31
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about a programming tool (IDE), which would normally belong on Stack Overflow, but is too old to migrate. – user40980 Sep 14 '14 at 0:49
up vote 5 down vote accepted

I had a similar problem after installing a couple of extensions. I ended up disabling them all and enabling them only when I actually use them. This really helped the experience.

EDIT: There seems to be a problem with certain Video Cards and drivers. You can check all the info here:

share|improve this answer
Thanks, but I don't have any extensions installed – Rachel Sep 24 '10 at 16:17
Hmm, have you checked this out?… – Arturo Molina Sep 25 '10 at 3:14
I'm not sure if its the registry key or the VS setting, but my performance seems much better now! Thank you! – Rachel Sep 27 '10 at 12:14
Marking your answer as the Accepted one because your comment lead me to a solution even if the Answer didn't. Could you edit your answer to include the link? – Rachel Sep 27 '10 at 13:46
You got it! ;-) – Arturo Molina Sep 27 '10 at 20:56

Get a faster machine?

share|improve this answer
I didn't think my machine was that bad... Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4400 @ 2.00GHz, 1.20GHz, 2GB of RAM – Rachel Sep 24 '10 at 14:24
Think you need more than 2GB ram for VS 2010 - it's a memory monster – Jaco Pretorius Sep 24 '10 at 14:43
if you go too high, you will have to make sure your running a 64bit os, otherwise you probably wont see that extra ram :( – Muad'Dib Sep 24 '10 at 15:16
I'm running VS2010 on a 1GB machine now... it only takes up ~200MB. Is that unusual? – Note to self - think of a name Sep 24 '10 at 15:23
Ouch. 4gb seems to be a necessity these days for WPF. – Morgan Herlocker Jun 9 '11 at 19:32

In addition of the Muad'Dib answer, I would recommend you a simple upgrade:

Replace you old hard drive by a solid state drive.

The performance increase of Visual Studio .NET is incredible.

share|improve this answer
I can confirm that, I have 2 striped Intel X25-M drives and Visual Studio flies. – ChaosPandion Sep 24 '10 at 14:28
If you consider the relation price/capacity of the SSD incompatible with your needs then go to a good Hybrid HDD. Anyway I would consider a SSD + HDD. SSD is the best upgrade you can do. – bigown Sep 24 '10 at 16:47
I think that a developer should have the best machine available, this include the best SSD available. – user2567 Sep 24 '10 at 16:58
@Pierre just remember to also test your software's startup performance on a lowly consumer machine that doesn't have 8GB RAM and a $500 SSD :) – romkyns Jan 24 '11 at 0:57
@romkyns: Your suggestion is good, but I'm afraid it falls in the category of "means well". People easily talk about doing testing on a slower machine, but I've never ever seen anyone do it, with an eye to fixing performance issues. – Mike Dunlavey Feb 4 '11 at 15:54

With 2GB of RAM, I would really start right there. The larger the projects in your solutions, the more RAM you will need.

When you're away from VS and resume, do you notice the hard drive working very hard? That's an indicator it's using the disk to handle increased demands for RAM... RAM runs in nanoseconds, disks in milliseconds, so you can see the problem.

RAM is cheap (2GB should be well less than 100USD unless your machine is very old), but your OS may limit how much you can have. It also is as simple of an upgrade as you can pull off in most cases.

share|improve this answer
I wouldn't go with less than 4GB. – bigown Sep 24 '10 at 16:42
I didn't notcied any significant improvement 2GB 32bit vs 4GB 64bit... – Nazgob Feb 4 '11 at 15:58

Are you running anti-virus software? If so, try turning it off for a while and see if you notice an improvement. It may be that it's configured for on-access scanning of certain file types, which can be a real performance killer with typical developer usage patterns.

share|improve this answer
We have Symantec AntiVirus. Network admin has it so we can't turn it off or tamper with it, but perhaps I can ask him to add an exception for the VS project directory – Rachel Sep 24 '10 at 16:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.